Justices question line-item veto's impact

While several Supreme Court justices Monday said they are concerned by the constitutional issues surrounding the line item veto, several seemed even more troubled by the question of whether the plaintiffs in the case actually were harmed by President Clinton's use of it.

"It's astounding that we get two people who are down the line," Justice Antonin Scalia said in questioning whether two groups that have brought the case actually have standing to sue.

The court heard oral arguments in the case Monday. One suit, which was filed by the City of New York, hospitals, hospital associations and unions, asserts the groups were harmed by the president's line item veto of a Medicaid provision that would have given them preferential payment treatment. And the Snake River Potato Growers said their efforts to purchase processing facilities were harmed by Clinton's veto of a tax provision.

The Supreme Court already has thrown out one line item veto suit filed by members of Congress, ruling they did not have standing. Referring to that ruling, Scalia said, "We went into a big windup last year with no pitch."

In arguing the line item veto is constitutional, Solicitor General Seth Waxman said the power does not "prevent Congress from enacting any laws it wants." He acknowledged that a "pure" line item veto--in which the president could veto items before he signs a bill--would not be constitutional, but added that the current veto takes place after a bill is signed, with the money going into a lockbox. He said Congress has given the president the power to choose not to implement the law.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens said, from the taxpayers' point of view, that the law was "canceled." Justice William Ginsburg added that the power "sounds to me like legislating," and Justice David Souter said there is no difference between making law and repealing law.

Attorney Louis Cohen, representing the Snake River Potato Growers, agreed the president is producing a "truncated statute that Congress didn't pass."

But, in an exchange with the plaintiffs, the justices made it clear they are worried about the standing issue. Cohen said the potato cooperative was attempting to purchase processing facilities, and the purchases were affected by the veto. However, Scalia said the seller of the processing facilities actually was the party hurt by the veto. And attorney Charles Cooper, representing the City of New York, said the city stands to lose funds if the veto stands. "We do have a group of plaintiffs ... [with] a very real and direct injury," he said.